Slashdot Mirror
Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Layzej writes: Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, are calling on the news media to stop using the word "skeptic" when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."
And hackers would like the media to stop calling computer criminals hackers.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Still waiting for the Global Cooling... oops, Global Warming... oops, Climate Change... oops, Climate Disruption "Scientists" to reach a point where they can make a prediction. Until then, it's not a science.
And then we can call AGW proponents the Church of Global Warming. I'm sure people agree far more when name calling is involved.
...and burn them at the stake as witches? That aught to take care of those pesky people who disagree.
Because scientific theories have always been infallible, haven't they?
Oh, Science, please go back to the lab and transmute some gold or something.
Sent from my ENIAC
First, pointing a finger and screeching 'DENIER' seems a lot like pointing the finger and screeching 'HERETIC', lending credence to the whole environmentalism-as-a-substitute-religion theory.
Beyond that, these scientists might find more traction for their beliefs if they could get away from the folks who are peddling 'solutions' for AGW. You know, the activists who want to make energy so expensive that poor people will have to live in dark, cold homes, and gasoline so expensive that they have to stay in those cold, dark homes.
I imagine, however, that any activist or scientist advocating the use of 'denier/(heritic)' has substituted Gaia for God, and would be very happy to burn their opponents at the stake.
As for me, I'm not qualified to analyze the science. Instead, I'll consider the matter when the people who say it's a problem act like it's a problem. Until their personal conduct matches their words- buying carbon credits ('indulgences') doesn't count- then it's just a continuation of prior climate panics.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
When you actually look at the science itself, it's pretty clear. And nowhere near what the proponents claim.
For that matter, when you look at the history of AGW catastrophism, you see a lot of, well, denial. By the people whose predictions failed miserably.
So far we have NOT seen an increase in the number and size of hurricanes. We have also NOT seen an increase in droughts, an increase in tornado numbers or strength, a decrease in winter snow, or a number of other things. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of events that were predicted as part of CAGW that have not happened (and in many cases, the reverse has come to pass).
We still have a fairly icy polar ice cap (the "sciency" prediction from just a few years back was that it would effectively be gone by now).
We're also about 0.1 C below the low-end value of over 95% of predictions for global temperatures (and 0.5 C below the "most probable" number). That in itself invalidates CAGW as a scientific theory.
Yes, the Earth has warmed. Yes, some of it has been due to CO2 increases by humans.
But the amount - and the results - are both badly blown predictions. That means that the followers of CAGW are, by and large, denying science because it didn't give them the result they wanted.
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Exactly.
A skeptic will ask questions, and will pay attention to the answers, open to the possibility of their views being changed by evidence. That's science.
A denier will pretend to ask questions, but with no real interest in the answers: their opinions are already set, and won't be changed. That's not science.
Deniers pretend to be skeptics. However, they are actually exactly the opposite: the distinguishing feature of deniers is not skepticism, but credulity-- they seen to credit pretty much anything they hear (or read on a blog somewhere)-- if it supports their pre-existing opinions.
(Amusingly, Fred Singer wrote an article making that exact point: "Deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name.")
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This will backfire. The idiots driving this would associate dissent on climate change predictions with folks who reject the historical fact of the Holocaust, the only other place where the term "deniers" is routinely used.
You can't have a brain in your head and seriously think that the modern climate change predictions have a comparable level of certainty to the historical fact of the holocaust. This sort of gross overreach is obvious even to mere mortals who can't readily follow the scientific arguments for or against global warming. It makes the speaker, and every other claim he makes, suspect.
The media has done climate change scientists a great favor by labeling the folks who still challenge the predictions as "skeptics." That word carries connotations of government conspiracy and alien abductions. It's a gift.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Can you simultaneously accept X while questioning X? Seems illogical.
Of course you can. Terms for this in the science community include "working hypothesis" and "the best current model" and phrases such as "subject to further analysis, we currently believe..."
Skeptical has synonyms such as :distrustfull, suspicious, unconvinced. These would all describe a person who is either a "denier" or a skeptic.
No. Deniers have made up their minds already; they are not "unconvinced" at all: they are firm believers. That's the difference between a denier and a skeptic.
So then what you are saying in reality is that anyone not accepting your way of thinking is a "denier" and that "You are either with us, or you are against us!"
No. Deniers have made up their minds already; they are not "unconvinced" at all. That's the difference between a denier and a skeptic: a skeptic can be convinced by evidence.
Established science can and has been and should be questioned as that is how we advance scientific knowledge and processes
There is a difference between paying attention to the science and denying the science. That difference is the difference between a skeptic and a denier.
When you start with the conclusion that the science is wrong because you don't like it-- you're not a skeptic.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.
That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp. Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action". I deny that they've been telling the truth, and they agree! Has the "science" gotten any better? Well, we know that a typical volcano releases a couple tons of CO2 each day. A few months ago, there was an "OMG Global Warming!" story here on Slashdot that reported atmospheric CO2 levels rising more than expected - based on measuring CO2 on a friggin a volcano! Which is kind of like reporting global average humidity based on moisture measurements taken below Niagra Falls.
There IS some good science supporting global warming, but the alarmist stuff makes better headlines, so 90% of the "science" reported is complete junk, obviously so. I reject all claims based on this utter junk pseudo-science.
The second problem is more recent. Every president has their slush fund, a federal program or two which they use to send tax money to their donors, who send some back as campaign donations. It just so happens that THIS president's slush funds are included in the $100 billion we're spending on "green". For example, the tax payers loaned over a half a billion dollars to Fisker to develop their electric car. Fisker turned right around and handed millions of it to Obama and other Democrats. There's nothing new about that, of course, other than the exchange of greenbacks is normally labeled "green energy" right now. That makes anything labeled "green energy" or "save the planet" inherently suspicious, just like Haliburton contracts were suspicious when Cheney was in the White House. We know that any proposal to spend "half a billion for green energy" means $10 million for the DNC, $10 million for Hillary's campaign, $10 million split between a few congress-critters, $50 million for their CEO friend's golden parachute, and $420 million to who-knows-where. Again, not new - Haliburton was the same. "Green" is the new "Haliburton".
I find it very difficult to be offended by someone referring to me as a cracker, I'd have to stop laughing first.
That's your White Privilege (TM) talking.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Overall I like the sentiment of the post made, but it falls apart at the point when it incorrectly defines sharing:
>> "Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions to another, denying you use or benefit thereof."
You have just redefined sharing for your own purpose. Your argument makes the same mistake it seeks to oppose, loading words for it's own purpose.
Sharing is not so limited in definition. I can "share" my knowledge with my students, and not be deprived of anything myself. In addition, I can share things that don't belong to me with others, although it might be illegal, it's still pretty clearly sharing. In particular, transferring information is definitely "sharing" and is not always illegal. I could be sharing information I created myself, perhaps my own artwork.
Even if your definition is copy pasted a dictionary definition, one particular dictionary definition does not suffice to fully define a word. Dictionaries are extremely simplified definitions written for quick reference. Etymology and semantics of words are much more complex. For example, even by just using other dictionaries I can find that a common definition is "to use or enjoy something jointly".
Specific types of copying can (and do) run afoul of particular laws, so "copyright infringement" meets your definition of it, but sharing simultaneously meets a definition of sharing that is more reasonable and widespread than that which you use. Copying itself, and in general, is not wrong. Whether particular copyright infringement is ethical or not depends on a lot of factors too complex to really get in to here (eg. the legitimacy of the laws in effect, the proper functioning of democracy, the consent of those governed, etc).